New Champ article in AOPA magazine

[Jerry Eichenberger]

I assume by now that most of us have seen the pilot report on the new Champ in this month's AOPA magazine.

The biggest problem is the useful load. As tested, the subject airplane had only 248 pounds worth of cabin load with full fuel. Since the fuel capacity is only 18 gallons to start, that makes it, for all practical purposes, a single place airplane.

I have a few comments/questions that may affect the airplane:

1. Why wait to go with the O-200D engine until it's formally certified? Save the 30 or so pounds of empty weight now, and do the airplane under the consensus stardard, like Cessna is doing the Skycatcher. No one cares whether it's fully certified or built to the consensus.

2. Would the empty weight be less with the L-16 configuration, eliminating the headliner, etc.? To me, the L-16 is much better due to the enhanced visibility.

3. Can the heavy toe brake pedals be drilled full of lightening holes, can the fancy interior be cut down?

4. Can rear brakes be standard without a lot of weight?

5. Can another fuel tank be added in the other wing, so that when flown solo, the airplane can get some decent range? Does a bare tank and fuel line weigh much?

6. The window needs to be sliding, like the old Champ. Lighter frame, and way more "cool".

Just some thoughts. To be competitive, I think the airplane's empty weight needs to go down 100 pounds to be able to use it in the training environment, where we have to be legal.

[Captgrumps]

Also can the price be reduced?????

Doug

[jerrymjr]

1. Why wait to go with the O-200D engine until it's formally certified? Save the 30 or so pounds of empty weight now, and do the airplane under the consensus stardard, like Cessna is doing the Skycatcher. No one cares whether it's fully certified or built to the consensus.
---------------------------
First off, you wont even be able to get it until it is certified. The changes are not that dramatic that certification is daunting. They are still finalizing the changes, not waiting on certification. You cant even get the O-200-D yet. We are told around the first of the year....which i different from 6 months ago where they said about August....

The ammount of work to properly do an ASTM spec airplane would put the airplane off at least a year. why? It can have a standard ticket right now! To separate the ASTM airplane from the PC built airplanes would probably be best to build a new facility. You are NOT allowed to mix the parts, and there are a lot of common parts.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. Would the empty weight be less with the L-16 configuration, eliminating the headliner, etc.? To me, the L-16 is much better due to the enhanced visibility.
------------------------
Nope and we boast very good visibility already. As it stands, the greenhouse roof alone is a 4.5 lb weight gain.

Incidentally, the last 7ACA went out the door at 851 lbs. Thats no electrical with the 2 cylinder franklin in a spartan 1973.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. Can the heavy toe brake pedals be drilled full of lightening holes, can the fancy interior be cut down?
---------------------------
Yeah, that might get us 4 ounces. For the strength required, I don't know if its worth the analysis. The interior is be3ing cut down with an expected 4 lb loss. However, every buyer so far WANTS the plush. So, what are you supposed to do?

"I want my airplane lighter, but I need a gyro package"


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. Can rear brakes be standard without a lot of weight?
--------------------------------
Not if you actually want them to work for the lifetime of the airplane. Its 3.5 lbs. of linkage; I really dont see being able to save more than a few ounces without excessive retooling. (Unless you want heel brakes, and no, that wont be happening)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
5. Can another fuel tank be added in the other wing, so that when flown solo, the airplane can get some decent range? Does a bare tank and fuel line weigh much?
--------------------------------------
Were you just griping about the empty weight?
A tank might only be a a few pounds but you need supporting structure unless you want the first gust to push it out the bottom of your wing. For a second tank, count on 8-10 lbs total.
If you went with 2 smaller tanks, you would still need support structure for 2 tanks and then would have less capacity....in the end you would be at the same senario. With a lot of messing around, i am sure you could pick up 30-45 mins more fuel for the same weight. Lots of work for a little gain. It might happen someday, but not at the moment.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6. The window needs to be sliding, like the old Champ. Lighter frame, and way more "cool".
------------------------------------
Meh, the current left side window is not heavy....the door, well that is a harder fish to fry.

I apologize for being snide and...
I realize you are just making comments, but this is very 'I know better than you'

We are well aware of the weight issue, thank you.

[jerrymjr]

Also can the price be reduced?????

Doug

Sure, I will ask the guys to take a 50% pay cut.

When we can get American labor for Chinese prices, the price will drop a lot. Compare to the price of other new LSAs.

[Captgrumps]

Jerry--

Just kidding, but most everyone else in the aviation business has taken a pay cut.....I know.. Unfortunately that might just keep some out as New LSA owners--and have to recycle the older Aeronca's.

Doug

[jerrymjr]

Yeah, I know you were just pullin a chain...thus my

Problem with the senario is not even the fact its Aviation. Its a product that has a lot of man hours (not just ours) and a volume that is so low, you literally cannot do it outside the country. (Not that we want to). So, everyone is stuck, paying 1000-2000 man hours of American wages per airplane. You dont want to hire slackers for something like this, so you cannot get minimum wage either. So, its a trap. We manage to be highly competitive with low overhead. (It shows, see my website )

The good side of the inflation is that older airplanes (whether 2 years or 60 years) hold their value and infact make them investments. Unlike a boat, you can break into airplane ownership and not fear that you will lose any money; no matter whee you start. (unless you over pay for a basket case or some other obvious pit fall).

[Jerry Eichenberger]

Jerry, Jr. et al.:

I'm not griping about the price - it wasn't even mentioned in my earlier post. I actually think it's a fair price. Most of the European LSAs top $120K when well equipped, since the dollar is so weak against the Euro.

We have to be realistic about prices, and value for what we pay. If we want a $60K LSA it's out there, but I don't want to fly it.

If Cessna can hold the line on the Skycatcher's $109.5K price with a glass cockpit, that is surely a bargain.

It's just frustrating to see a better airplane (the Champ) having a hard time competing in the weight category with the Legend Cub.

Don't fret - that's why I posed my post as comments and questions. The questions were genuine, not veiled suggestions.

[CptKelly]

I don't understand why the "new" Champs couldn't be built exactly like the old 7AC model, with the exception of the engine? My 7DC weighs 811# empty, and has a useful load of 489#. This useful load allows me, my wife, and full tanks to fly legally, without exceeding 1300# gross.
The only change that I would like would be a sliding door window, for really good ventilation in the hot months.

Mike

[joea]

"I want my airplane lighter, but I need a gyro package"

Good one! Everyone wants it lighter to be able to carry more but then they always load it up!

Joe

[MikeB]

CptKelly:
Are sure your 7DC actually only weighs 811#? A lot of the weights in the log books are 'projected' weights (guessed) or the weights haven't been added or computed as the years have gone by. Great, if that's all it scaled by the way.

Personally I'm glad American Champion is building new Champs (and in this country/and my state). They're way out of my price range but wish I could afford one.

Mike Berg
(my 7AC weighed in a 835# ).

[Oliver Barth]

I also wonder, what is it that makes an airplane heavy? My 46 Champ is in cotten, nice interior, winddriven generator, comm and XPDR and weights 880 pounds.
I like to believe, that with ceconite, thin paint I should be able to come closer to 840 to 860 pounds?
Am I wrong?

Another question to jerrymjr:
What is the weight difference of the wing with the metal spar you offer as a replacement compared to the wing with the wooden spar?

[Mnflyer]

Hi CptKelly, I have real reservations that, that is your planes true wt. I have a 7DC and it weighs in at 938 lbs. with a Cont. 0-200 electrical system 2 13 gal wing tanks, a headliner and seat cushions no carpeting bare painted side walls.

[CptKelly]

MnFlyer,
938# is actually not a bad weight for a full electrical 0200 powered Champ with two 13 gallon wing tanks. I have seen champs that were nearly 1100# with the same engine. Our Champ (actually, my wife's Champ) really does weigh 811#. It is bone simple, and un-modified as far as any electrical system is concerned, it has none, even though the engine is a C-85-12. No starter or generator is fitted, and it has no battery. The previous owner was a IA, and weighed the Champ several times himself to do the weight and balance. The fabric on this plane is not the heavy grade of Stits, and is comparitively pretty light. I am about to install a B&C starter and Odyssey lightweight battery, and the reason for this is that my wife is a 100 pound lady who has no business propping any airplane. I'd give up 25-30 pounds for this feature. We use a portable GPS, and handheld radio. I am doing my level best to keep it light, but usable.
Thanks for all the good posts.

Mike

[Mnflyer]

[jerrymjr]

"I want my airplane lighter, but I need a gyro package"

Good one! Everyone wants it lighter to be able to carry more but then they always load it up!

Joe, I wish I could say I made that up....


This is why we can't make it like the old 7AC. You need a full electrical system to start with, and the engine is a 100# loss right off the bat. Plus that tooling is long long gone. The expense of having fewer comon parts would really drive the price up.

Seriously, the other LSA's might be 890# but they fight that limit constantly and have to really cut corners. You have to find out real weights and not maneufacturers claims. I know someone who was giving instruction in a new Top Cub that weighed 980#...so there!

Instead of 1320 GW and 890 empty. The whole senario should be based on wing loading IMO. Unfortunately for us, that would mean the FAA would have to change CFR 14 1.1. Whereas, the ASTM guys could get quicker results out of a spec change. Hmm, now that i think about it, the FAA would have to open it up for them at the same time.

We are doing a few things to lighten it up, but they are weighed against what the buyer will truely want. I even tried to eliminate the boot cowl insulation only to be shot down 4 to 0 by customers and dealers. The new interioir sheet metal for example is 0.75 pound lighter. We are talking only the aluminum arm rests and rear panels. We think there are several pounds to be had punching extra holes in things though. Need a lighter door, 500x5's will be standard next year (600x6 will be option instead of standard). So that the buyer knows he is weighing it down.

Sliding window is something we can consider, it would be cosmetically inconsistant with the fact the other 3 windows will be bubbled. It is usually prone to holding moisture and rusting out, but then, nothing wrong with some parts sales!!